In Re Joseph F. Radler III, the Dick Law Firm, PLLC v. the State of Texas
Opinion
Opinion issued August 3, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
2022. On January 10, 2023, real parties in interest filed a motion to dismiss this petition for writ of mandamus as moot because the trial court signed a final judgment on August 22, 2022. Relators filed a response to the motion to dismiss opposing dismissal because they would like this Court’s “thoughtfully considered ruling in this mandamus for use in the prosecution of their appeal.”
To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show two requirements:
(1) that the trial court abused its discretion, and (2) no adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004). An order of sanctions, including an award of attorney’s fees, are subject to review on appeal from a final judgment. See Susman Godfrey, L.L.P. v. Marshall, 832 S.W.2d 105, 108 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, no writ). Although no final judgment had been entered at the time relators filed this petition, there is a final, appealable judgment now and relators may seek review of the sanctions order in the appeal from the final judgment. Because relators have an adequate remedy by appeal, they are unable to show entitlement to mandamus relief.
We deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In Re Joseph F. Radler III, the Dick Law Firm, PLLC v. the State of Texas (In Re Joseph F. Radler III, the Dick Law Firm, PLLC v. the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.